Naturally a great deal of the problems with pit bulls are owner-related problems. And naturally there are plenty of pits that have no genetic predisposition to aggression, because they come from lines that have had that aggression bred out of them.
But to take the extreme position that there is no significant number of pit bulls with a genetic predisposition to aggression is without merit.
Oh, they’re not linked, it’s on a separate page. What lazy web design.
That’s the title of the Sacks study – the dog-bite equivalent of phrenology or dousing.
FYI, if you can’t speak to me civilly, you won’t get a response. I have no interest in debating either an uncivil person or a person who wants to argue about whether she’s being civil.
Sure–breed is an unscientific term, which is why I’m talking about breeders and specific animals. What’s incontrovertible is that there are people who want to own pit bulls, who get dogs they identify as pit bulls, and who breed these animals they identify as pit bulls to have a genetic predisposition to violence. The number of people who do these things far exceeds the number of people who do all these things with Llasa Apsos, golden retrievers, or beagles.
Do you dispute any of that?
If you don’t, then you agree with me.
That’s one MASSIVE bit of handwaving you did there. Cite there is a registry of fluffy bunny pit bull lines.
What did they use, other than eyewitness reports, to determine the breed of the dog?
Yes. I’d like to see a cite.
That has nothing to do with what I said, so I’ll decline your request :).
Can you be specific what you’re asking for a cite on? You might Google “Sporting Dog Journal” if you’re asking for a cite of people who try to breed aggression into dogs they identify as Pit Bulls. I don’t want to link to those people directly.
You were asked for a cite first. Are you going to ignore that, while asking other people for cites?
The part of your post where you claim that far more people buy pit bulls and are more likely to breed them for aggression towards humans than any other dog breed. I’d like to see some statistics.
Ah, no. I didn’t say “than any other dog breed.” I said “than Llasa Apsos, Golden Retrievers, or beagles.” Certainly you could find similar things with rottweilers, German Shepherds, etc. My point is that dogs identified by their owners as pit bulls, as a whole, present a greater danger, because of that subset of breeders.
I have shown you how to find that subset of breeders; just Google as I suggested above to find them (they’re a repellent lot so I don’t want to make a direct link to them). As far as I know, while you can find a similar set for breeds like Rottweilers, you cannot find a similar set for golden retrievers.
Do you still dispute what I’m saying?
Yes. As a whole, I’m not convinced they are a more dangerous breed due to the small subset of breeders who advertise for aggression. Are they even advertising human aggression, or aggression toward other dogs?
Mistreatement of dogs could also cause them to be more aggressive toward humans, in which case you could conclude that more popular breeds, or more trendy breeds, would have higher percentages of aggressive individuals.
There are too many factors invovled to accept what you are proposing at face value.
Keep in mind that I’m talking about proportions, not absolutes (I think this debate is often steeped in absolutism on both sides, and if you’re reading anything I say as absolute, I’m probably not communicating effectively). As such, if there’s even one breeder more doing this for pits than there is for poodles, it’s going to show up as a proportional effect. But there’s significantly more than 1.
And yes, “sporting dogs” are supposed to be aggressive only toward other dogs and not people. But not all backyard breeders are able to tease out that strain; rather, they’ll just breed the meanest two dogs they can find together. The tweakers who write “sporting dog” magazines will rail against those breeders in the same way that the Wire’s Barksdale railed against Marlowe Stanfield.
That’s absolutely a piece of it, no doubt. But I’d also propose that Staffordshire terriers are on a whole more likely to be mistreated than West Highland terriers, because nobody who wants to use their dog to identify as a badass gets a Westie for that purpose.
I actually draw the opposite conclusion. In order for what I described not to be in effect, something among the following has to be true:
All these statements except #4 seem obviously wrong to me. I’m not sure what #4 would be.
I dispute this. I don’t believe you can just instill genreal meanness in a dog, much less breed it into a bunch of dogs. You breed for prey instinct, or specific hunting behaviors, or fighting etc.
Again, I don’t believe that aggression toward humans is being bred into these animals.
I’m not sure why this is hard to believe. You can breed a dog for a willingness to attack other creatures, and this ought to be easier than breeding it for a willingness to attack only other dogs: just find a couple of really mean dogs and breed them together.
But here’s a preliminary cite for you:
I’m not sure making this up.
Again, the increased documentation is based on unreliable breed reporting. Otherwise, your cite supports my point.
Are there “breeders” (to use that word to describe these people unfortunately demeans the vast majority of animal breeders, “scum” might be a better choice) who take dogs who have the Pit Bull pheonotype (and who may or may not have Pit ancestry) and breed based on ease of instilling aggressiveness and then either abuse the shit out the animals or sell to those who do in order to create scary looking powerful and aggressive dogs? Of course.
Is the actual official breed an aggressive dog? No. The breed standard is and has been “to be very stable, loyal and trustworthy. Their disposition should be outgoing, playful yet protective when needed.” Protective, yes. Not aggressive.
The two positions are not incompatible. Dogs that look like Pits and who in some cases may include some Pit ancestry are bred by scum and treated in a way that they become lethal weapons that can go off on their own. And dogs of the official American Pit Bull line bred by reputable breeders for purchase as pets are overwhelmingly stable, loyal, trustworthy, and playful. Raised and cared for by responsible owners they are great pets and no more risk to a child in the house than the vast majority of other pet dogs, especially other pet dogs of similar strength.
Are there breeds that are more difficult to breed and train aggression into? Of course. And ones that physically would present less of threat even if abused into becoming aggressive. (If my sweet old man whippet, Hobbes, attacked you, his bite would not be likely to tear your throat out and even a large child could subdue him with a good kick.) And there are breeds that are easier to make into weapons … even if they don’t look as impressively scary, which is part of the attraction of the Pit phenotype to the scum.
Hinging this discussion on whether or not Pit Bulls (or dogs identified as Pit Bulls) are disproportionately involved in fatal dog attacks is specious. You might as well take the fact that a disproportionate number of homicides in this country are committed by young adult Black males (most commonly urban poor Black males killing other young adult Black males) and conclude that Black males are biologically to be more aggressive and violent than are Whites. It is an abuse and misunderstanding of statistics in both cases which results in faulty conclusions.
I’m not trying to be rude, but this analogy has shown up in literally every pit bull thread I remember seeing around here, and it’s very troubling. Black men are not a good analogy for pit bulls for a couple of reasons:
I agree entirely with this paragraph. If anyone thinks my position deviates from this paragraph, please accept my apologies for not communicating effectively with you.
No it isn’t. Did you read the cite? It’s based on historical trends of criminal dogfighters and their approach to their “sport,” as noticed by folks experts in law enforcement efforts against these criminals.
To the extent it does, your point is in agreement with what I’m saying.
Then what is your evidence that law enforcement folks are able to correctly identify the dogs used by criminal dogfighters?
Regards,
Shodan
[quote=“Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, post:58, topic:657969”]
No it isn’t. Did you read the cite? It’s based on historical trends of criminal dogfighters and their approach to their “sport,” as noticed by folks experts in law enforcement efforts against these criminals.
[/quotes]
I was talking about the ASPCA’s statement about the “increased numbers of attacks against people”. Those numbers are likely based on media reports. They don’t cite it, so we have no way of knowing.